California Proposition 1A, High Speed Rail infrastructure

Status
Not open for further replies.
Calvin said:
nationalmapcc8.jpg



This is not much of a cross country route for Amtrak as it looks limited routes.
Click to expand...

This map gives us a good idea of how trains can get across. If the high speed rail were added along those routes, those cities will have economical boom and killing the current highway's economy. If Americans strictly follow new addition to the current highway, that will be ideal to encourage better growth of economy.

Really think about it... California has a lot farming along highway 5 where majority of new develop high speed rail will not be on. Will this high speed bring developers to the rail surrounding area? Encourage people to move out of LA or SF area? I calculated 3hours from Sacramento to San Diego. Means people will move farther out of city and commute on high speed rail. It will spread out the population of California.

Maybe this will spell out new states "North California and South California" due to expanding population.
 
Foxrac said:
Yup, same with Las Vegas but used to be until 1997, I think so.

Amtrak isn't cheaper than fly on airplane anymore because rate is so expensive and depends on anywhere would take in.
Click to expand...

Not always. You can get a last minute Amtrak fare and beat the price for flight fare that you need to reserve in a week or two later. For example, it's $60 round trip (not deaf discounted) from Seattle to Portland via Amtrak compared to $120+ for flight.
 
Raise your right hand and repeat after me:

" I would never take a train from Seattle to Chicago. " :)
 
Well, US is a big country so its ridiclous to ride a train cross country unless you do want scenic views.
Trains are good for up to 500 miles or so.
 
sequoias said:
Not always. You can get a last minute Amtrak fare and beat the price for flight fare that you need to reserve in a week or two later. For example, it's $60 round trip (not deaf discounted) from Seattle to Portland via Amtrak compared to $120+ for flight.
Click to expand...

Oh really, interesting.

I think it should be cheaper for short distance, less than 500 miles.
 
sequoias said:
Well, US is a big country so its ridiclous to ride a train cross country unless you do want scenic views.
Trains are good for up to 500 miles or so.
Click to expand...

At the time--it was cheaper to take the train than fly.

So I took the train--never again!
 
Byrdie714 said:
At the time--it was cheaper to take the train than fly.

So I took the train--never again!
Click to expand...

Interesting.

I will always fly because train is too slow. If it takes 5 days to across USA. Hence to say Seattle to Chicago in 3 days for train and priced at $150. Airplane ticket is $200 but 3.5 hours. Dont forget 3 days means 3 meals a day at 7 bucks each average. 63 bucks all together. I spent more money with time on train than on airplane. For the price is good for time worthy.

Scenario is good if you have plenty of time to travel across America.

if we have high speed train, it will change the situation in different factor. Ideal if i can cargo my car to anywhere in USA and still use my car off train to go anywhere I want. That is true form of traveling that I would like to do... instead of using rental car.
 
Do you think these super fast trains will allow for cargoing vehicles?
 
Good question about those trains would carry your cars. It might be possible. In Europe, they have duplex trains, it can be long as 16 cars with 4 engines topping at 200 mph between London and Paris, they carry cars on the train.
 
Byrdie714 said:
Raise your right hand and repeat after me:

" I would never take a train from Seattle to Chicago. " :)
Click to expand...

I love trains, and if I had the opportunity, I would take one from Chicago to Seattle in a heartbeat. ( I would also be pretending that I was in the glamorous 1940's.)
 
Bottesini said:
I love trains, and if I had the opportunity, I would take one from Chicago to Seattle in a heartbeat. ( I would also be pretending that I was in the glamorous 1940's.)
Click to expand...

let me join you! :cool2:
 
sequoias said:
Good question about those trains would carry your cars. It might be possible. In Europe, they have duplex trains, it can be long as 16 cars with 4 engines topping at 200 mph between London and Paris, they carry cars on the train.
Click to expand...

Here's the video of the Eurostar's TGV Duplex....you can see 4 engines with 16 cars. Sometimes they carry your cars in one of those train cars.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TShoT_v8XE&feature=related[/ame]
 
Look good! I hope California will allow you carry your car. That will boost up economy as well. More people will travel if they can be green friendly with their car on train for long distance.

Again that is small fraction of people that are "green friendly". I have found many that are not "Green friendly". Hence to say, don't know about energy bulbs or use them.
 
Deaf Mortgage said:
Look good! I hope California will allow you carry your car. That will boost up economy as well. More people will travel if they can be green friendly with their car on train for long distance.

Again that is small fraction of people that are "green friendly". I have found many that are not "Green friendly". Hence to say, don't know about energy bulbs or use them.
Click to expand...

yeah, faster to bring your car on the train than driving with stress and the mileage and wear and tear on your car.
 
sequoias said:
yeah, faster to bring your car on the train than driving with stress and the mileage and wear and tear on your car.
Click to expand...

True! Yet how much it costs to carry your car on the speed train so it might change your mind to drive instead?
 
web730 said:
True! Yet how much it costs to carry your car on the speed train so it might change your mind to drive instead?
Click to expand...

I really have no idea ha ha. Probably cost a fortune. I don't think there's really a demand for that stuff.
 
I would take the train. When I lived in Minnesota I used to travel by train all the time. It was cheaper than flying, and better than taking the nasty Greyhound bus. I took the bus once, and someone stole ALL of my damn luggage! It was my ENTIRE wardrobe! I had nothing to wear! I was so pissed off! I had to go out and buy my entire wardrobe so I would have clothes to wear! Because I never had access to my luggage on the bus, but on Amtrak I ALWAYS had access to my luggage, and therefore was always able to check on my luggage frequently to make sure nothing was stolen. And on Amtrak they always let me ride in the disabled car, more room in there, and I'm able to arrange the luggage in there so I can sleep on them like a bed, and less people in there, too. It's fun. I like to walk up and down the train cars, meet interesting people, and have fun. On the plane, you can't do that. You have to sit in a cramped seat for hours, and that kills my back and my hip (I have two injured discs at L3-L4 and at L4-L5 which is in my lower back, and I also have hip dysplasia in my left hip which I was born with). I need to be able to move around a lot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top